Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 8, 2012 7:00pm-7:30pm PDT

7:00 pm
stability and a 10-year lease for it is honorable, and i hope you go forward with it. thank you very much. >> item g, consent calendar. >> any items withdrawn or corrected by the superintendent? any items severed by the boards for discussion? commissioner mendoza: k7. i do not need staff to stay for that discussion, i just have comments on it. president yee:
7:01 pm
roll-call vote will take place under a section o. item h, superintendent proposal. already moved and seconded. wait. i am up. so, superintendent proposal. report from commissioner. >> we gave it a positive recommendation.
7:02 pm
we are requesting approval of the recommendation of the curriculum committee and the english-language adoption arts committee. we had a process to review these materials involving teachers. and part of the committee is here. i will let them introduce themselves quickly. >> eyeball read the proposal and we will answer any questions. -- i will read the proposal and we will answer any questions. english language arts instructional materials adoption, requested action. that the board of education adopt the following instructional materials in support of the curriculum in
7:03 pm
english-language arts. number one, calif. treasures' common english language development. macmillan and mcgraw-hill 2010. number two, calif. literature, 6-8, a program t2. 2009. i do not know if you have questions, but we have a couple of points that we would like to make about why we did instructional materials adoption, the process and this recommendation. >> is the reason we convened this committee was because the last adoption that we had in san francisco for elementary and middle school occurred in 2003. the state held another cycle and
7:04 pm
that was in 2008. the district did not adopt at that time. the next state adoption will not be until 2018. san francisco's current adopted ela instructional materials are 11 years old, outdated. they are not aligned to the standards. it is very difficult -- it has become increasingly difficult every year to find replacements. so --the other thing that is happening is the cycle is every six years. publishers usually provide the district with free materials. those are no longer being provided free to the district. therefore, we would need to
7:05 pm
purchase those. another important fact is that with the 2008 instructional materials adoption by the state, they put into law that any publishers would need to include the provisions for special education materials for students, and that is not true for the 2003 adoption that we currently have. in addition to that, there were more -- there was more attention to and more instructional materials that had to do with eld. >> would you say who was on the committee and briefly about the process, thank you. >> there were 19 -- excuse me,
7:06 pm
at 18 teacher members of the committee, 11 from elementary school and seven from middle school. there was also a parent on the committee. an elementary school principal, and a partner from san francisco state university. >> the committee composed of teachers, not for time spent the first meeting was a two-hour orientation meeting where we reviewed the process of the selection. we also had to sign -- to prepare for the following meetings. and then we had 3 release -- three meetings were be looked at the district dates, patterns and trends, which will inform our selection process.
7:07 pm
we reviewed the california standards for ela. most of us were already familiar with the spread most of us were part of the response committee for the core curriculum process. we developed criteria for selection. on the second day, we forgot this criteria and we completed -- wheat firmed up this criteria. two publishers for elementary, and two four middle schools. we have students review and complete the surveys. so that they would be participating in the process also. on the third day, we reviewed the student survey results and selected the materials to be adopted. >> do you have any questions?
7:08 pm
commissioner wynn: i just wanted to thank everybody. we appreciate what you said, but this is part of our state wide education community wide issue about being locked into these categorical programs, right? we think curriculum must get adopted every seven years. and it is published that way. we cannot get any replacements and when did not have the supplemental materials. it does not work because it is set up to work that way. of course, we have the ability to spend the money on something else. you know, appropriate to the time curriculum material should be at the top of the list of
7:09 pm
what our students need. i appreciate this, i think it is an admirable thing for us to do. and what we should be doing. it is nice to do the right thing. it is nice to be able to even in dire circumstances. thank you very much. >> a tremendous amount of work. i do have a question about whether the curriculum materials will be available on-line, like if there are any connection to online content. i know kids, when they have to hurry around -- carry around a heavy textbooks, it can be problematic. i wanted to know to what degree does this curriculum take advantage of online or digital -- >> i will say one thing. one thing that we want to
7:10 pm
emphasize is that this sets of instructional tools is a subset of everything teachers use in the classroom. we do not feel these adopted instructional materials equal the curriculum, so it is our hope that the curriculum is much broader and includes a lot of online resources. >> there are technological components to the materials. a lot of it is on cd, as well accessible online, to teachers and students. president yee: thank you for all of your work. roll call, please.
7:11 pm
[roll call] that is unanimous. president yee: thank you very much. board members proposals tonight. none tonight. if i hear no objections from the board, i would like to kick out of order at this time the 2012- 2013 budget development update. superintendent garcia? >> i will turned over to our deputy superintendent. we thought that before, since the meeting that we are addressing lay offs, we thought
7:12 pm
it would be in poor and for people to understand what is the situation right now so that people have a little better understanding of why these layoffs are even taking place. >> thank you, superintendent. we are going to use a power plant and we are trying to get the production of -- a powerpoint and we're trying to get the projection up. ok, so this is going to be fairly short period the purpose -- fairly short period the purpose is to fold, one is to review the information that the
7:13 pm
board has received. i believe some of this information has been presented at a previous regular meeting of the board. secondly, to provide some updated information to the extent we haven't, and we are on the verge of seeing the may revision numbers come out from sacramento with the governor's proposed revision to the budget. even though in that information is about to be released, we thought, given the occasion and delight of the discussions taking place in the community with our partners and community members, that it would be timely for us to give an update about the state of our budget and our productions. -- projections. one thing on the state education budget, it is very important
7:14 pm
that everyone continue to recognize that the governor's proposed budget would hold a general purpose funding for schools flat. that is only if a temporary tax increases are passed. just to review some of the specifics under that, the proposed budget includes zero funding for statutory cost of limits -- cost-of-living adjustment. the cola has been calculated at 3.24. that is not funded at all under the proposed budget. that would increase the deficit factor to about 22%. the deficit factor represents the percentage of each dollar of general purpose finding that k- 12 schools should be receiving that we will not receive.
7:15 pm
78 cents on every dollar of general purpose funding is what we could stand to receive under the governor's proposed budget. that is assuming that the tax is passed. the difference between a fully funded cola and a zero funded colette is about $8 million a year. -- cola is about $8 million a year. even if the tax initiative passes, are projected deficit would grow under the governor's proposal. if the taxes are not approved, proposition 98 funding would be significantly reduced. this next slide, this is a little bit to -- this is a three-slide presentation. this sort of go together. we have a version of the same information on the school
7:16 pm
districts website. if anyone wants to look at the version on the website. and i will walk through this step by step. i think it does bear some clarification. i believe there are -- there is a fair amount of confusion and the community about the state of the district's finances and our projections. this is an attempt to try to clarify some of the projections of the next two years. as has been noted several times, the beginning balance for the current fiscal year as of july 1, 2011, it is a little bit less than $56 million. this is for unrestricted general fund. that is well established, and our balance is sometimes also
7:17 pm
referred to as our reserves. in the year that we are in, we are in may, that would be the last month of the current fiscal year, we are deficit spending to the tune of about $20 million. we will spend about $20 million of this reserve during the course of this fiscal year. that will lead a $35.3 million beginning balance to carry forward. as of june 30, 2012, what we project, and is subject to change, we would have a $35.3 million balance. that would be our ending balance for this year and that would become are beginning balance for next year. that means that we would instead of having to $55.8 million fund balance, we would have a $35.3
7:18 pm
million fund balance that we would carry into next year. if we look at the governor's proposal with the tax is passing, looking ahead into next year, we will expect to receive $53.9 million less than we need to maintain our current programs. in other words, deficit spending by another $53.9 million. that would take our positive fund balance of $35.3 million and it would fully deplete that an adult $18.6 million in the red. -- to plead that and we would have $18.6 million in the red.
7:19 pm
we have to keep a $16.9 million positive fund balance. that is to cover are required reserves and other required reserves. if you take the difference between a -18.6 and a positive 16.9, we have a shortfall for next year of $35.5 million. that is what is shown in the last number and the 12-13 column on the table. looking at the following year, we would began a 13-14 with that negative fund balance of $18.6 million. but that would be the beginning fund balance of the 13-14. we would project that we would deficit spend by another $47.7 million. that would leave and ending fund
7:20 pm
balance of -$66.3 million. keeping in mind that we need to keep a positive $70 million fund balance as opposed to a zero fund balance, leawood save and eighth -- we would seek a shortfall in 13-14. this is not a realistic situation because if we were on track to spend down our reserves this quickly and go beyond our zero fund balance, we would not maintain the autonomy that we have. the state would intervene, whether it is by assigning fiscal trusty or taking over the district. these numbers could not come to pass without triggering some serious intervention by the
7:21 pm
state. that is the difference between the starting point that we did began this current fiscal year with and what we are on track to overspend by the end of the year after next. this is all based on the scenario in which the governor's tax proposal passes. ok? as noted on the bottom of page 3, these figures do not include any rainy day reserve funds. they reflect the expiration of cost savings provisions of our collective bargaining agreements that have been reached with our unions for 10-11 and 11-12. because those are set to lapse, these expenditures contemplate that all of those provisions
7:22 pm
would go away and expenditures would come back into the general fund. there are some positive signs based on what i have just gone through that beginning with the city's rainy day reserves, we are very hopeful that the super -- we are hopeful that the city will support the district with rainy day reserve funds and the maximum draw that we would be eligible for the $6.3 million in 12-13. the following year, up to another $4.7 million. that is based on the amount of money in the reserve. another positive sign is that we expect the governor to restore state transportation funding in the revision. that is about $7.2 million each year. in his original january budget
7:23 pm
proposal, he proposed eliminating state funding for transportation. we receive about $7 million annually for that funding. since that january proposal, he has backed off of that and said that he supports maintaining that funding, but he would propose that it become flexible and turned into categorical programs. if he holds true to that in his may revision, we would see the $7.2 million restored in the revenues. another positive thing is that we are in the process of selling a piece of surplus property, to san francisco state university. that sale was approved by the board several weeks ago. it is in the process of going
7:24 pm
through the approval processes with the state. should all that come to pass, which we do expect will happen, we would use the proceeds of that property sale to prepay a series of debt obligations and that would allow us to avoid and reduce our debt service costs by about $875,000 a year. that would begin next year. over this two-year. period, these three items together would close that $83 million gap by about $27 million. it would make a meaningful dent in that $83 million gap. on the other hand, we face some significant risks better not in the numbers i just went through. the may revision, we are anxious
7:25 pm
to see what happens with that, but it has been clear that the budget for the current fiscal year of about revenue collections statewide are not coming to pass. the estimates of the shortfall in the budget versus the actual revenues collected is in the neighborhood of 3-$5 billion. because of that, there is a chance that the funding for education would not maintain that flat funding, but would show funding decrease. we will seek in about a week or 10 days, i think. the second risk is that, of course, the taxes -- neither of
7:26 pm
them passes and if that was the case, a lot of the revenues would change. even just with the governor's proposed revenue for schools, that would be about $18 million different each year. $36 million over this time frame for us. i want to close by -- i want to quote from a column that appeared in the sacramento today. it was reprinted in the san francisco examiner. complex funding system has schools in the wringer. i think it is worth mentioning some of this. i think it is a very useful articulation of a lot of the problems that we're facing.
7:27 pm
this month, the districts must decide whether to continue or rescind laos on the assumption that they will know the state of their 12-13 finances. that is problematic in any year because the legislature typically does not settle the state budget until weeks or months later. a law passed by voters in 1988 is supposed to governor -- govern what schools receive, but the numbers are subject to annual manipulation. financing has dropped by about $700 per pupil since 2008. thiat best, they can only guessd hope to adjust if they're wrong. this year is even worse than usual. as the legislature's budget analysts and others have pointed out, the passage of taxes would give k-12 education $2.2 billion to catch up on some deferrals.
7:28 pm
if taxes are rejected, brown once school districts to lose that and be forced to eat $2.6 billion in school bond payments. the total it would be $7 billion plus, or more than $1,000 per pupil. it closes by saying, if california voters and politicians had sent out to create the most rational school finance system possible, they could not have done a better job. we would not be surprised if they try to improve on the job they have done in the future. that is about it in terms of our presentation. if the commissioners have questions, please let me know. president yee: thank you, deputy superintendent, for the rosy picture. i have one question. in your budget for the current school year, you have that there
7:29 pm
is a deficit spending of $20 million. that was anticipated from will develop the budget last year, correct? >> that is correct. president yee: we knew any ways that even though we had the beginning balance of $55 million, we would spend down on that. ok. any other questions? thank you very much. commissioner maufascommissione't assume passage of the taxes or failure of the taxes?